Italy on Monday denied safe harbor to 141 people rescued by a humanitarian ship off the coast of Libya last week, setting up another standoff with European Union allies over taking in migrants who try to cross the Mediterranean.

The Aquarius, run by Franco-German charity SOS Mediterranee and Doctors without Borders (MSF), picked up the people in two separate operations and is in international waters between Italy and Malta.

Malta said it had no legal obligation to berth the ship and Spain said its ports were not the safest destination.

Italy called on Britain to welcome the Aquarius because it was registered in Gibraltar, but the British territory on Spain’s southern coast said it should go to an Italian port.

…

The Aquarius spent nine days at sea in June after Italy’s new populist government took office and shut its ports to all humanitarian boats, calling its operators a “taxi service” and accusing them of helping people-smugglers — charges the charities deny.

YES, this is the same goddamn boat.

“It can go where it wants, not in Italy!” far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said on Twitter on Monday, mentioning France, Germany, Britain or Malta as possible destinations.

“Stop human traffickers and their accomplices,” he wrote.

Transport Minister Danilo Toninelli, who oversees ports and the coast guard, tweeted that, because of the Gibraltar connection, Britain “should assume its responsibility to safeguard the castaways”.

The Gibraltar government said in a statement the ship could no longer fly a Gibraltar flag from Aug. 20 and should revert back to the “underlying owners’ flag,” which is Germany.

Yeah, that is the deal.

This is Germany flooding Italy.

Of course, the NGOs themselves are funded by ((((((Soros)))))) and other top kikes.

BUT NO MORE!

THE JIG IS UP!

Salvini has successfully locked down the fort.

ALL HAIL!

Now it’s time to start the street-by-street clean-up of the filth still roaming the streets.

Ten people, including two children, have been hospitalised after gunshots were fired in Manchester on Sunday morning, as the multicultural city celebrates its ‘Caribbean Carnival’.

Armed officers were called to Claremont Road, Moss Side at 2:30 a.m. on Sunday and found a number of people suffering injuries which ranged from minor to major.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said large groups of people had been brought to the area by afterparties following the opening day of the city’s annual Carnival, described as a “vibrant celebration” which promised to bring “Caribbean culture to the forefront” over the weekend.

Heh… “vibrant.”

I didn’t think people still used that word in a non-satirical context.

Anyway, as you probably guessed, the “carnival” was nothing more than a space in which Manchester’s nogs could shed all pretensions of being “British citizens” for an afternoon or two and celebrate what they really are: gyrating, ass-worshiping monkeys from the treetops of Africa:

Cohencidentally, this carnival shares a similar racial makeup to London’s Notting Hill carnival, which is also notorious for its liberal use of rooty tooty point and shooties:

Detective Superintendent Debbie Dooley said: “We currently have a number of people in hospital all being treated for different injuries but thankfully most do not appear to be life-threatening at this time.

“Officers are trying to establish exactly where this incident took place and who is responsible for such a dangerous attack.”

Where this incident took place: around niggers.

Who is responsible: niggers.

There, job done.

Hopefully, the Manchester police will now stop wasting time hunting down blacks for acting like blacks at a black festival and start tackling real crimes in their city, such as the widespread rape of white schoolgirls by Moslem “grooming” gangs.

Though I’m not holding my breath…

An inner-city neighbourhood once infamous for violent gangs which terrorised the streets as they battled for control of the drugs trade, Moss Side was more recently believed to be the base of more than a dozen young Islamists who travelled abroad to fight with jihadi groups.

Heh, a Caribbean carnival in the middle of a Moslem neighborhood. That’s kinda funny in a “the absolute state of Britain” sort of way.

It’s strange that terrorist attacks never occur at these black festivals, though. It’s almost as if Moslems target whites as part of an ongoing race-specific conquest.

The Manchester Arena bombing of May 2017, lest we forget.

Despite Britain having what the BBC boasts are “some of the toughest gun laws in the world”, with law-abiding citizens barred from carrying firearms or any other articles for self-defence in England, Scotland, and Wales — even pepper spray is prohibited — gun crime surged 11 per cent in the last year, with experts warning illegal weapons are “easy” to buy from a black market.

Meanwhile, Switzerland has the most liberal gun laws in Europe and they enjoy minimal gun-related street crime.

So what’s going on here?

I mean, both Britain and Switzerland are multicultural. Britain is infested with smelly Indians, humorless Pakis and excitable Africans, while Switzerland is infested with smelly Frenchmen, humorless Germans and excitable Italians.

Hot off the record-breaking and critically acclaimed success of his film “Death of a Nation,” which argues that far-right nationalists are actually communistic Democrats – and vice-versa – Pakistani intellectual and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has signed a contract with Disney to make a series of films claiming that things are actually the opposite of themselves.

“The idea is to create a series of documentary films which link together to tell the story of how everything is actually the opposite of what it is, in a dynamic way that will entertain audiences across the planet and make billions upon billions of dollars for our Jewish shareholders,” Iger told the Times.

“Audiences were shocked to find that far-right racists are actually somehow far-left liberals for some reason. We haven’t seen minds blown like this since it was uncovered that the diabolical German Nazis made lampshades and soap out of guiltless international banker Jews,” Iger added.

Iger, who identifies as “an aggressive communist Jew,” has a personal interest in D’Souza’s newest release, telling the Times that he had donated “hundreds of millions of dollars” to the Democrat Party, believing they would bring “true Jewish communism” to America. Upon seeing the film, he was shocked to learn that they were followers of Hitlerian Nazism, the ideology that killed six million of his people.

“Dinesh truly opened my eyes,” he said.

The next film in the series, which Disney has dubbed the “Opposoverse,” a portmanteau of “opposite” and “universe,” is tentatively titled “Bootlip, Slant-Eyes: A New Look at Race Relations.” Already in production, the film argues that American blacks are actually Communist Chinamen, that the Black Lives Matter movement is entirely made-up of diabolical Asiatics in rubber “nigger masks” and is designed to stir racial tension as part of a Communist Chinese plot.

Despite the seemingly confusing and absurd premise, Disney execs have stated that this is much more than “gooks are the real niggers,” and that the film, which began production in late June and is scheduled for a summer 2019 release, will make an “incontrovertibly factual presentation, proving once and for all that black activists, including BLM leaders such as Deray McKesson, are actually Chinamen.”

A spokesman for McKesson told the Times that he is not a Chinaman and has never owned a rubber mask. He added that he is “shocked and outraged.”

Although D’Souza has a completed script for an unnamed project showing that “living people are the real ghosts,” it is currently in development hell as his fellow American-Indian M. Night Shambalam has claimed that the script plagiarizes his own film “The Sixth Sense.”

Tentative sequels in the Opposoverse include films with themes intended to demonstrate that “fish are the real birds,” “post offices are the real hospitals,” “shampoos are the real toothpastes,” “submarines are the real rocket ships,” “mouths are the real anuses,” “dentists are the real refrigerator repairmen,” “doors are the real windows,” “Valium is the real Adderol,” “pizzas are the real hamburgers,” “innocent people are the real convicted felons,” “the sun is the real moon,” “chopsticks are the real spoons,” “brains are the real kidneys,” “popsicles are the real cigarettes,” “Coke is the real Pepsi,” “skyscrapers are the real underground bunkers, ” “banjos are the real flutes,” and “Metal Gear Solid is the real Final Fantasy.”

One Jewish Disney executive, who described D’Souza as “the Socrates of the modern era,” told the Times that he sees an opportunity for these films to be produced two or three times a year for decades, or even centuries.

“There is simply no present comprehension of how many things are actually the opposite of what they are,” the Jewish exec, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Times. “For instance, did you know that shoes are actually the real hats?” He went on to say that the deep intellectual depth required to explain the factual reality of shoes being hats “could take a trilogy of films that could each run for three or four hours in length.”

“I’ll tell you this: Nike is going to have a lot of explaining to do,” he added.

Nike did not immediately respond to request for comment on the intimation by Disney that they are in fact a hat company.

The Times spoke with clothing industry analyst Moses Diamondstein who said that if shown to be true, “the revelation that Nike has been selling shoes that are actually hats could virulently devastate stock prices and potentially sink them entirely.”

Although he said he was too busy to talk on the phone, D’Souza told the Times via Snapchat that he is “ecstatic about the fact that the truth-seekers at Disney have recognized the brilliance behind the idea that most things are somehow the opposite of the thing that they are,” noting that upon signing the contract for 70 “Opposoverse” films, he went out and bought a $20,000 watch and an ostrich jacket, and is in the process of closing on a beach house in Boca.

He added: “don’t worry, I’ll pay my taxes on this hot new stuff,” and included a “XD”-type smiling emoji. This was an apparent reference to Bob Manafort, who is presently being prosecuted for conspiring with Vladimir Putin to not pay taxes on an ostrich jacket and other items.

With some recent Marvel and Star Wars films failing to meet studio expectations at the box office, the Opposoverse maybe be just what Disney needs to get American and international audiences flocking back to theaters.

A Left-wing Gay Activist on Leftist Groupthink and Fanaticism

Eliminating the hold that this kind of leftist groupthink and cultism has on much of the wider anarchist, libertarian and radical milieus is the principal task that needs to be achieved in order to develop a larger, more viable, and more effective revolutionary anarchist movement. Every radical movement needs its idealists, dreamers, and do-gooders, but this totalitarian humanist left-fascism of the kind the author describes is beyond pathetic. It is essentially a betrayal of the entire Western radical tradition of critical thinking, free inquiry, and open discourse. Socrates, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Bertrand Russell would all be ashamed. This is why I have endeavored to introduce anarchists to systems of thought outside the usual leftist paradigm, ranging from Nietzsche and Stirner, to the European New Right to Rothbardian libertarianism to paleoconservatism to national-anarchism to right-wing populism to elite theory to critiques of the new class and the managerial revolution to free market anti-capitalism. Anarchists need to expand their range of thought and a wider pool of ideas to draw from.

The good news is that the left-fascists are in the process of falling apart due to their tendency to cannibalize each other during the course of the “who’s most oppressed?” pissing context and the persistent inquisitions. Scenes such as the one in this video represent both the pathetic nature of the present day “radical left” as well as why the totalitarian humanist left-fascist paradigm will eventually fade.

I’ve been a queer activist since I was 17. I grew up in a socially conservative rural town where people would shout homophobic slurs at me from the windows of their pickup trucks. My brushes with anti-gay hatred intimidated me, but they also lit a fire in me. In my last year of high school, I resolved to do whatever I could to make a change before I graduated and left town for good. I felt like I had a duty to help other queer kids who were too scared to come out or who had feelings of self-hatred. I gave an impassioned speech about tolerance at a school assembly, flyered every hallway and classroom, and started a group for LGBTQ students and allies.

Not long after, I was exposed to the ideas of ((((((((((((((((((((((((Judith Butler)))))))))))))))))))))))), a bold and penetrating mix of third-wave feminism and queer theory. I saw truth in Butler’s radical perspective on gender, and it felt liberating. My lifelong discomfort with being put in a box — a binary gender category — was vindicated. This is when my passion for feminism began in earnest. I put a bumper sticker on my car that said “Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make History.” I bought a subscription to Bitch magazine. When it came time to graduate and move on to McGill, I eagerly enrolled in a class on feminist theory, as well as a class in Sexual Diversity Studies, the subject that would later become my minor.

My world only kept expanding from there. In Montreal, I was exposed to a greater diversity of people and perspectives than ever before. The same sort of transformation that had occurred in my mind about gender happened with race and disability. I learned about classism and capitalism. At Rad Frosh, a workshop by the high-profile activist Jaggi Singh gave me my first real introduction to anarchism. My first year at McGill was a whirlwind of new people and new revelations.

In my second year, I dove in. I became heavily involved with a variety of queer, feminist, generally anti-oppressive, and radical leftist groups and organizations, in every combination thereof (Mob Squad is one example of many). I read books like Why Are Faggots So Afraid of Faggots? and The Coming Insurrection. I shouted my lungs out at protests. So many protests. Marching down the street carrying a sign that said “Fuck Capitalism” became my main form of exercise. That was the year of the tuition protests. There was a lot of excitement in the air. I thought maybe, just maybe, there would be a revolution. A girl can dream.

2012 was the year I hit peak radicalism. Things I did that year included occupying a campus building (for the second time), bodychecking a security guard, getting rammed at low speed by a cop on a moped, sitting through an entire SSMU General Assembly, and running from flashbang grenades hurled by police. (I wasn’t nearly as hardcore as most of the people I knew. “I love how pepper spray clears out your sinuses,” one said. Some participated in black blocs. At one point, a few spent the night in jail.)

Since then, my political worldview has steadily grown and evolved and refined itself. I no longer pine for revolution. I don’t hate capitalism or the state as if those were the names of the people who killed my dog. My politics still lean to the left, just not quite so far, and now I view economic and political systems with an engineer’s eye, rather than in the stark colours of moral outrage. I am just as passionate about queer activism and feminism as I ever was, and aspire to be an ally to other anti-oppressive movements just as much as I ever did. I feel like I have a richer and more nuanced understanding of anti-oppressive politics and ethics than ever before. I’ve held onto all the lessons that I’ve learned. I am grateful to the many people who shared their insight with me.

There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics.

I’ll be graduating soon, and I’ve been thinking about my years in Montreal with both nostalgia and regret. Something has been nagging at me for a long time. There’s something I need to say out loud, to everyone before I leave. It’s something that I’ve wanted to say for a long time, but I’ve struggled to find the right words. I need to tell people what was wrong with the activism I was engaged in, and why I bailed out. I have many fond memories from that time, but all in all, it was the darkest chapter of my life.

I used to endorse a particular brand of politics that is prevalent at McGill and in Montreal more widely. It is a fusion of a certain kind of anti-oppressive politics and a certain kind of radical leftist politics. This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path. Having been on both sides of the glass, I think I can bring some painful but necessary truth to light.

Important disclaimer: I passionately support anti-oppressive politics in general and have only good things to say about it. My current political worldview falls under the umbrella of leftism, although not radical leftism. I’m basically a social democrat who likes co-ops and believes in universal basic income, the so-called ‘capitalist road to communism.’ I agree with a lot of what the radical left has to say, but I disagree with a lot of what it has to say. I’m deeply against ((((((((((((((((((((((((Marxism))))))))))))))))))))))))-Leninism and social anarchism, but I’m sympathetic to market socialism and direct democracy. I don’t have any criticism for radical leftism in general, at least not here, not today. What I feel compelled to criticize is only one very specific political phenomenon, one particular incarnation of radical leftist, anti-oppressive politics.

There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.

First, dogmatism. One way to define the difference between a regular belief and a sacred belief is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs. If someone does question those beliefs, they’re not just being stupid or even depraved, they’re actively doing violence. They might as well be kicking a puppy. When people hold sacred beliefs, there is no disagreement without animosity. In this mindset, people who disagreed with my views weren’t just wrong, they were awful people. I watched what people said closely, scanning for objectionable content. Any infraction reflected badly on your character, and too many might put you on my blacklist. Calling them ‘sacred beliefs’ is a nice way to put it. What I mean to say is that they are dogmas.

Thinking this way quickly divides the world into an ingroup and an outgroup — believers and heathens, the righteous and the wrong-teous. “I hate being around un-rad people,” a friend once texted me, infuriated with their liberal roommates. Members of the ingroup are held to the same stringent standards. Every minor heresy inches you further away from the group. People are reluctant to say that anything is too radical for fear of being been seen as too un-radical. Conversely, showing your devotion to the cause earns you respect. Groupthink becomes the modus operandi. When I was part of groups like this, everyone was on exactly the same page about a suspiciously large range of issues. Internal disagreement was rare. The insular community served as an incubator of extreme, irrational views.

High on their own supply, activists in these organizing circles end up developing a crusader mentality: an extreme self-righteousness based on the conviction that they are doing the secular equivalent of God’s work. It isn’t about ego or elevating oneself. In fact, the activists I knew and I tended to denigrate ourselves more than anything. It wasn’t about us, it was about the desperately needed work we were doing, it was about the people we were trying to help. The danger of the crusader mentality is that it turns the world in a battle between good and evil. Actions that would otherwise seem extreme and crazy become natural and expected. I didn’t think twice about doing a lot of things I would never do today.

There is a lot to admire about the activists I befriended. They have only the best intentions. They are selfless and dedicated to doing what they think is right, even at great personal sacrifice. Sadly, in this case their conscience has betrayed them. My conscience betrayed me. It was only when I finally gave myself permission to be selfish, after months and months of grinding on despite being horribly burnt out, that I eventually achieved the critical distance to rethink my political beliefs.

Anti-intellectualism was the one facet of this worldview I could never fully stomach.

Anti-intellectualism is a pill I swallowed, but it got caught in my throat, and that would eventually save me. It comes in a few forms. Activists in these circles often express disdain for theory because they take theoretical issues to be idle sudoku puzzles far removed from the real issues on the ground. This is what led one friend of mine to say, in anger and disbelief, “People’s lives aren’t some theoretical issue!” That same person also declared allegiance to a large number of theories about people’s lives, which reveals something important. Almost everything we do depends on one theoretical belief or another, which range from simple to complex and from implicit to explicit. A theoretical issue is just a general or fundamental question about something that we find important enough to think about. Theoretical issues include ethical issues, issues of political philosophy, and issues about the ontological status of gender, race, and disability. Ultimately, it’s hard to draw a clear line between theorizing and thinking in general. Disdain for thinking is ludicrous, and no one would ever express it if they knew that’s what they were doing.

Specifically on the radical leftist side of things, one problem created by this anti-theoretical bent is a lot of rhetoric and bluster, a lot of passionate railing against the world or some aspect of it, without a clear, detailed, concrete alternative. There was a common excuse for this. As an activist friend wrote in an email, “The present organization of society fatally impairs our ability to imagine meaningful alternatives. As such, constructive proposals will simply end up reproducing present relations.” This claim is couched in theoretical language, but it is a rationale for not theorizing about political alternatives. For a long time I accepted this rationale. Then I realized that mere opposition to the status quo wasn’t enough to distinguish us from nihilists. In the software industry, a hyped-up piece of software that never actually gets released is called “vapourware.” We should be wary of political vapourware. If somebody’s alternative to the status quo is nothing, or at least nothing very specific, then what are they even talking about? They are hawking political vapourware, giving a “sales pitch” for something that doesn’t even exist.

Anti-intellectualism also comes out in full force on the anti-oppressive side of things. It manifests itself in the view that knowledge not just about what oppression, is like, but also knowledge about all the ethical questions pertaining to oppression is accessible only through personal experience. The answers to these ethical questions are treated as a matter of private revelation. In the academic field of ethics, ethical claims are judged on the strength of their arguments, a form of public revelation. Some activists find this approach intolerable.

Perhaps the most deeply held tenet of a certain version of anti-oppressive politics – which is by no means the only version – is that members of an oppressed group are infallible in what they say about the oppression faced by that group. This tenet stems from the wise rule of thumb that marginalized groups must be allowed to speak for themselves. But it takes that rule of thumb to an unwieldy extreme.

Let me give an example. A gay person is typically much better acquainted with homophobia than a straight person. Moreover, a gay person has a much greater stake in what society does about homophobia, so their view on the matter is more important. However, there is nothing about the experience of being gay in itself that enlightens a gay person about the ethics of sexual orientation.

To take a dead simple case, you don’t have to hear it from a gay person to know that homosexuality is ethically just fine. If you’re a straight person and a gay person tells you that homosexuality is wrong, you can be confident in your judgement that they are full of shit. In this situation, the straight person is right and the gay person is wrong about homosexuality and homophobia. Gay people have no special access to ethical knowledge, in general or about sexual orientation specifically. Gay people do tend to have better ethical knowledge about sexual orientation than straight people, but that is only because of how our life circumstances move us to reflect on it.

If I said the same thing about another context that isn’t so simple — when the correct opinion isn’t so obvious — I would be roundly condemned. But the example’s simplicity isn’t what makes it valid. People who belong to oppressed groups are just people, with thoughts ultimately as fallible as anyone else’s. They aren’t oracles who dispense eternal wisdom. Ironically, this principle of infallibility, designed to combat oppression, has allowed essentialism to creep in. The trait that defines a person’s group membership is treated as a source of innate ethical knowledge. This is to say nothing about the broader problem of how you’re supposed to decide who’s a source of innate knowledge. Certainly not someone who innately “knows” that homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, but why not, if you’re simply relying on private revelation rather than public criteria?

Consider otherkin, people who believe they are literally animals or magical creatures and who use the concepts and language of anti-oppressive politics to talk about themselves. I have no problem drawing my own conclusions about the lived experience of otherkin. Nobody is literally a honeybee or a dragon. We have to assess claims about oppression based on more than just what people say about themselves. If I took the idea of the infallibility of the oppressed seriously, I would have to trust that dragons exist. That is why it’s such an unreliable guide. (I half-expect the response, “Check your human privilege!”)

It is an ominous sign whenever a political movement dispenses with methods and approaches of gaining knowledge that are anchored to public revelation and, moreover, becomes openly hostile to them. Anti-intellectualism and a corresponding reliance on innate knowledge is one of the hallmarks of a cult or a totalitarian ideology.

Anti-intellectualism was the one facet of this worldview I could never fully stomach. I was dogmatic, I fell prey to groupthink, and I had a crusader mentality, but I was never completely anti-intellectual. Ever since I was a child, the pursuit of knowledge has felt like my calling. It’s part of who I am. I could never turn my back on it. At least not completely. And that was the crack through which the light came in. My love for deep reflection and systematic thinking never ceased. Almost by accident, I took time off from being an activist. I spent time just trying to be happy and at peace, far away from Montreal. It had been a long while since I had the time and the freedom to just think. At first, I pulled on a few threads, and then with that eventually the whole thing unravelled. Slowly, my political worldview collapsed in on itself.

The aftermath was wonderful. A world that seemed grey and hopeless filled with colour. I can’t convey to you how bleak my worldview was. An activist friend once said to me, with complete sincerity, “Everything is problematic.” That was the general consensus. Far bleaker was something I said during a phone call to an old friend who lived in another city, far outside my political world. I, like a disproportionate number of radical leftists, was depressed, and spent a lot of time sighing into the receiver. “I’m not worried about you killing yourself,” he said. “I know you want to live forever.” I let out a weak, sad laugh. “When I said that,” I replied, “I was a lot happier than I am now.” Losing my political ideology was extremely liberating. I became a happier person. I also believe that I became a better person.

I’ve just said a lot of negative things. But, of course, my goal here is to do something positive. I’m cursing the darkness in the hope of seeing the light of a new day. Still, I don’t want to just criticize without offering an alternative. So, let me give a few pieces of constructive advice to anyone interested in anti-oppressive and/or leftist activism.

First, embrace humility. You may find it refreshing. Others will find it refreshing too. Be forceful, be impassioned, just don’t get too high on your own supply. Don’t drink your own kool aid. Question yourself as fiercely as you question society.

Second, treat people as individuals. For instance, don’t treat every person who belongs to an oppressed group as an authoritative mouthpiece of that group as a whole. People aren’t plugged into some kind of hive mind. Treating them like they are, besides being essentialist, also leads to contradictions since, obviously, not all people agree on all things. There is no shortcut that allows you to avoid thinking for yourself about oppression simply by deferring to the judgements of others. You have to decide whose judgements you are going to trust, and that comes to the same thing as judging for yourself. This drops a huge responsibility on your lap. Grasp the nettle firmly. Accept the responsibility and hone your thinking. Notice contradictions and logical fallacies. When you hear an opinion about a kind of oppression from a member of the group that experiences it, seek out countervailing opinions from members of the same group and weigh them against each other. Don’t be afraid to have original insights.

Third, learn to be diplomatic. Not everything is a war of good versus evil. Reasonable, informed, conscientious people often disagree about important ethical issues. People are going to have different conceptions of what being anti-oppressive entails, so get used to disagreement. When it comes to moral disagreements, disbelief, anger, and a sense of urgency are to be expected. They are inherent parts of moral disagreement. That’s what makes a diplomatic touch so necessary. Otherwise, everything turns into a shouting match.

Fourth, take a systems approach to the political spectrum. Treat the pursuit of the best kind of society as an engineering problem. Think about specific, concrete proposals. Would they actually work? Deconflate desirability and feasibility. Refine your categories beyond simple dichotomies like capitalism/socialism or statism/anarchism.

I am not going to let my disillusionment with my past activism discourage me from trying to do good in the future. If you find yourself similarly disillusioned, take heart. As long as you learn from your mistakes, no one can blame you for trying to be a good person. Don’t worry. We all get to come back.

A detachment of Nigerian troops fired into the air on Sunday – at an airport in the north-eastern city of Maiduguri – to protest against their redeployment to the frontline of the conflict against Islamist militants.

Local media reported that the soldiers refused to board the plane that was to transfer them from Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state, to the town of Marte, close to the border with Niger.

Witnesses said the soldiers were shooting for around four hours from 18:30 local time (1730 GMT), news agency Reuters reports.

Niggers refusing to fight Islamists? Nigeria should get creative here and tell its soldier niggers that Islamist sexual organs will grant them great strength. Niggers are always eager to eat nigger genitals, for some reason.

“We are angry and that is why we are shooting. Why are they taking us again to another place after spending about four years?”

Because you’re a nigg— I mean, because it’s your job? Aren’t you a soldier?

This is why niggers are useless. You can’t count on them for anything productive. They want none of that responsibility stuff. They’ll gladly kill themselves in weird tribal wars just because they like to do it, but the moment they have to do it, when it’s no longer a game or leisure activity they do and instead it has purpose, that’s the moment they get cold feet about it.

Sure, you can get them to kinda work if you put someone with a whip or gun, or both, to make them work. But… they’re niggers, and nothing good ever came out of a nigger. So why even have them now after the industrial revolution?

We could even train gorillas for the work that a nigger would do, and they’d be better at it. They do have a higher IQ after all.

For years, anthropologists have watched wild chimpanzees “go ape” and attack each other in coordinated assaults. But until now, scientists were unsure whether interactions with humans had brought on this violent behavior or if it was part of the apes’ basic nature.

A new, 54-year study suggests this coordinated aggression is innate to chimpanzees, and is not linked to human interference.

“Violence is a natural part of life for chimpanzees,” Michael Wilson, the study’s lead researcher and an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, told Live Science in an email. “They don’t need to be fed bananas to kill each other.”

We know chimps can be really nasty and male aggressiveness is already recorded in our closest species, including the male infanticide. But this goes too far: not only previously thought gentle females are equally aggressive, but it’s a common practice to kill and eat the babies of other females.

Reading about chimp behavior and reading about nigger behavior are pretty much the same thing.

Gorillas are an endangered species. There’s barely a thousand mountain gorillas in the planet. Niggers? There’s over a billion of them in Africa alone.

If we’re spending trillions on Africa, shouldn’t we be spending that money on creatures that really need it?

Last week I wrote about Act.il, the official Israeli app that orchestrates Jewish interference in politics and social media around the world.

This week brings an astonishing new development. The Jews are now pushing for the creation of gay & tranny political parties across the globe, targeting specifically the US.

The app is directing its users to like a comment on a web page that calls for the creation of an LGBTQ political party in the United States.

Have the Russians ever “interfered” in US politics in such a grotesque way, fomenting the creation of a new political party? A congressional inquiry must be held into how Israel is meddling in US internal affairs.